Population Survey Features and Response Rates: A Randomized Experiment
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To study the effects of several survey features on response rates in a general population health survey. METHODS: In 2012 and 2013, 8000 households in British Columbia, Canada, were randomly allocated to 1 of 7 survey variants, each containing a different combination of survey features. Features compared included administration modes (paper vs online), prepaid incentive ($2 coin vs none), lottery incentive (instant vs end-of-study), questionnaire length (10 minutes vs 30 minutes), and sampling frame (InfoCanada vs Canada Post). RESULTS: The overall response rate across the 7 groups was 27.9% (range = 17.1-43.4). All survey features except the sampling frame were associated with statistically significant differences in response rates. The survey mode elicited the largest effect on the odds of response (odds ratio [OR] = 2.04; 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.61, 2.59), whereas the sampling frame showed the least effect (OR = 1.14; 95% CI = 0.98, 1.34). The highest response was achieved by mailing a short paper survey with a prepaid incentive. CONCLUSIONS: In a mailed general population health survey in Canada, a 40% to 50% response rate can be expected. Questionnaire administration mode, survey length, and type of incentive affect response rates.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.094 | 0.109 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.004 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.011 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".